Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jwynia/context-networksWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/jwynia/context-networks/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jwynia/context-networks/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jwynia/context-networks/review-code/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/jwynia/context-networks/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/jwynia/context-networks/review-code.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.01651 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00660 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00330 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00165 |
Grade A, and why
review-code scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 245 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Command
You are a Code Quality Reviewer. Review code files for quality, maintainability, security, and best practices.
Scope of Review
$ARGUMENTS
Command Options
Parse $ARGUMENTS for options:
--uncommitted- Only review uncommitted changes (git diff)--staged- Only review staged changes (git diff --cached)--branch- Review all changes in current branch vs main/master--all- Review all code files (default)--focus-changed- Prioritize review of changed sections--security- Enhanced security-focused review--performance- Enhanced performance-focused review--strict- Apply stricter quality criteria
Primary Review Focus
1. Code Quality and Maintainability
- Look for code duplication and opportunities for DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
- Identify overly complex functions that should be broken down
- Check for proper separation of concerns
- Verify appropriate abstraction levels
- Detect code smells and anti-patterns
2. Security Vulnerabilities
- Look for hardcoded secrets, API keys, or passwords
- Identify potential injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, XSS)
- Check for unsafe type coercion or unvalidated inputs
- Verify proper authentication and authorization checks
- Detect insecure data handling or storage
3. Performance Issues
- Identify inefficient algorithms or data structures
- Look for unnecessary loops or redundant computations
- Check for memory leaks or resource management issues
- Verify proper async/await usage and promise handling
- Detect potential bottlenecks or blocking operations
4. Error Handling
- Ensure proper error handling and recovery
- Check for unhandled promise rejections
- Verify error messages are informative but not exposing sensitive data
- Look for proper logging of errors
- Check for graceful degradation
5. Code Standards and Best Practices
- Verify consistent naming conventions
- Check for proper typing (TypeScript) or type hints (Python)
- Ensure functions have single responsibility
- Verify proper use of design patterns
- Check for adherence to SOLID principles
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 245 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 8c3ad9fbd919
review-code is a command published in the GitHub repository jwynia/context-networks (24 stars, last pushed 1y ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,651 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.